What is California Assembly Bill 2943 (AB 2943)?

By now, if you live in California, you have probably heard about AB 2943, a bill that is meant to declare conversion and reparative therapy to be fraudulent business practices. According to its author, Evan Low, this is what it does and does not do.

What is AB 2943?

According to him, this bill:

• Prohibits the practice of conversion therapy in exchange for money
• Allows affected customers to recover damages
• Protects the LGBT community

According to him, it does not:

• Ban the sale of Bibles
• Ban free speech
• Prevent anyone from speaking or writing on conversion therapy

But is this accurate? I’m going to analyze each of these claims by looking at the text of the bill itself.

“Prohibits the practice of conversion therapy in exchange for money”

This is an accurate statement, but it is also slightly misleading. On one hand, the AB 2943 does accomplish this task and ban conversion therapy in exchange for money. However, it does not accomplish just this as he seems to suggest in the video.

The interesting thing is that the bill actually does not ban conversion therapy by name. In section 3, paragraph 28, what is actually prohibited is

(28) Advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.

So what is actually prohibited is not specifically conversion therapy, but “sexual orientation change efforts.” What are sexual orientation change efforts? That is defined in section 2, paragraph (i)

(i) (1) “Sexual orientation change efforts” means any practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.

(2) “Sexual orientation change efforts” does not include psychotherapies that: (A) provide acceptance, support, and understanding of clients or the facilitation of clients’ coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, including sexual orientation-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices; and (B) do not seek to change sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation change efforts is not limited to efforts to change one’s orientation as the name might suggest, but also includes efforts to alter behavior or gender expressions as well as efforts to simply reduce one’s sexual or romantic attractions toward the same sex. This goes beyond what many people think of when they hear conversion therapy.

“Allows affected customers to recover damages”

No qualms here. If sexual orientation change efforts are declared to be “deceptive acts or practices,” then they would be able to sue for damages.

“Protects the LGBT community”

Whether you think this is true will largely come down to whether you think conversion therapy or reparative therapy is harmful. As this is not the focus of this article, I won’t get into many details of the efficacy of these therapies. Very quickly, though, I will say a few things.

The vast majority of psychological associations assert that these kinds of therapies are ineffective, harmful, or both. There are reasons why they think this. Some of those reasons have merit. Some do not. It largely depends on how they define “effectiveness” and “harm.”

There are many good and bad reasons to seek such therapy. There are many good and bad ways to practice such therapies. Unfortunately, if one is seeking therapies like this for a bad reason (for example, thinking, “God will love me more if I’m straight.”), or if the therapy is practiced in such a way that is unethical or harmful (such as using physical or emotional abuse), then of course the results will be ineffective and harmful to the client.

But there are both good reasons to seek such therapies and good ways to practice them, as I myself have experienced. My experience in reparative therapy was positive, and I came out of it with greater psychological and emotional well-being than I had going into it. The church needs to become more educated on these issues and develop a more holistic theology regarding same-sex attractions if it is to avoid all the potential pitfalls.

“It does not ban the Bible”

True, AB 2943 does not ban the Bible explicitly. I don’t believe that the bill’s author is trying to do that either. Implicitly, it is highly unlikely to result in such action, but given a very loose interpretation, it’s not impossible. The language used in the bill is broad enough that it warrants concern. Here’s why:

In Section 3 of the bill, it states

The following unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or that results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer are unlawful:

of which is included in paragraph 28, quoted above. “Goods” and “Services” are defined in Section 2 as

(a) “Goods” means tangible chattels bought or leased for use primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, including certificates or coupons exchangeable for these goods, and including goods that, at the time of the sale or subsequently, are to be so affixed to real property as to become a part of real property, whether or not they are severable from the real property.

 

(b) “Services” means work, labor, and services for other than a commercial or business use, including services furnished in connection with the sale or repair of goods.

That may sound like legal gibberish, but it’s meant to cover just about anything you would use your money to purchase. In our context, it can include “goods” such as books or “services” such as psychotherapy or public speaking.

As a result, any person who advertises, offers to engage in, or engages in sexual orientation change efforts (SOCEs), in which an exchange of money for goods or services results, would be banned. Since SOCEs are defined so broadly, any good or service which encompasses changing behavior, gender identity, or reducing or eliminating sexual or romantic attractions for the same sex would also be banned.

Since the Bible commands people to abstain from sexual relations with the same sex (Lev 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:8-11), in essence saying they should change their behavior or not pursue what they naturally desire, is the Bible therefore a “good” which falls under this law? Again, I don’t think that’s the intent, but it’s not entirely impossible either.

“It does not ban free speech”

This is a half-truth. It would not prevent anyone from speaking about or promoting (SOCEs), so long as they do not charge money for it. So while it would not prevent a pastor from offering counsel regarding SOCEs free of charge, it would prevent someone from being a paid speaker to talk about or promote SOCEs. And remember, since SOCEs are defined in AB 2943 to include changing behavior, gender identity, and reducing or eliminating sexual or romantic attractions for the same sex, that would mean that someone could not be paid to speak about:

• leaving the homosexual lifestyle (changing behavior)
• living in accordance with their biological gender (gender expression)
• ways to reduce unwanted same-sex attractions (reducing or eliminating sexual or romantic attractions for the same sex)

Theoretically, since pastors are, in a sense, paid by their congregations, would this also limit their speech? Again, if we take Even Low at his word, I don’t think that’s the intent of the bill. However, the language is broad enough that it’s not impossible to imagine.

“It does not prevent anyone from speaking or writing on conversion therapy.”

Similar to the last section, it does not prevent anyone from speaking or writing on this subject, so long as they do not charge money for it. Again, since the language is so broad in what constitutes SOCEs, anyone who wants to write a book and charge money to promote changing one’s behavior, gender identity, or reducing or eliminating sexual or romantic attractions for the same sex would be prohibited.

Conclusion

The LA Times editorial board wrote an article on AB 2943 entitled, “Target ‘gay conversion therapy,’ not religion.” Even a left and progressive leaning newspaper like the LA times recognizes the pitfalls of this legislation. It’s not just the “religious right” making a mountain out of a molehill, though there are some who are admittedly making more outlandish claims.

Whether or not you think conversion therapy should be allowed, AB 2943 is poorly written and should not pass the Senate. I would advise everyone to call their legislators and urge them to vote no on this bill. Especially call these 5 senators, who are on the judiciary committee, which will hear the bill before the full vote in the Senate. If AB 2943 can be killed in committee, then it won’t go to the Senate floor to be voted on.

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson (Chair of the Committee) 916-651-4019
Senator Robert M. Hertzberg 916-651-4018
Senator Bill Monning 916-651-4017
Senator Henry Stern 916-651-4027
Senator Bob Wieckowski 916-651-4010

Update (8/19/18): AB 2943 Changed!

AB 2943 has passed the California Senate and is now in the Assembly once again for a concurrence vote. This basically is a vote to affirm and pass the bill as written in the Senate. More than likely, it will pass the Assembly soon and be sent to Governor Brown for his signature.

Our last chance to stop this bill will be to call your assembly member or Governor Brown’s office (213) 897-0322. Click here to find out who your assembly member is.

Changes to the AB 2943

A few amendments to the bill have been passed. The section which read

Advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.

has been changed to

Advertising, offering for sale, or selling services constituting sexual orientation change efforts to an individual

This is an important change, as the bill is now explicitly banning “services” as opposed to both “goods” and “services” that are mentioned in the section heading. In other words, the sale of goods such as books which advocate “sexual orientation change efforts” would not be prohibited, or so the proponents claim. Other goods like the Bible which teach against homosexuality would also be exempt from this bill. We will have to wait and see how the bill is actually used if passed.

The second section of concern largely remains unchanged. It read,

(i) (1) “Sexual orientation change efforts” means any practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.(2) “Sexual orientation change efforts” does not include psychotherapies that: (A) provide acceptance, support, and understanding of clients or the facilitation of clients’ coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, including sexual orientation-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices; and (B) do not seek to change sexual orientation.

It has been changed to

(i) (1) “Sexual orientation change efforts” means any practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.(2) “Sexual orientation change efforts” does not include psychotherapies that: (A) provide acceptance, support, and understanding of clients or the facilitation of clients’ coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, including sexual orientation-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices or to otherwise promote healthy sexual and romantic relationships; and  (B) do not seek to change sexual orientation.

This doesn’t mark any significant change as far as the reach or scope of the bill.

Implications

The bill still broadly defines “sexual orientation change efforts” to include changing behaviors, gender expressions, and sexual/romantic attractions or feelings towards the same sex. This means that adults will no longer have the ability to purchase services (such as psychotherapy) which advocate or try to accomplish any of these goals.

Questions Left Unanswered

While, in principle, I support the role of government in preventing and punishing fraud, I think it is a mistake to label, as such, all forms of therapy which seek to engage in changing behavior, gender expressions, and sexual/romantic attractions or feelings towards the same sex. The veracity of this bill largely rests on two questions.

First, does conversion therapy work? Is it harmful? This conversation is very complex. Admittedly, I am still doing research on this myself. From what I have discovered so far, the answers to these questions will largely depend on how you define your terms (such as “work,” “change,” etc.). However, to be fair, I will say that most secular organizations (like the APA) will state that there is insufficient evidence to support its efficacy and that many individuals that undergo sexual orientation change efforts report increased levels of distress. As of now, I can only briefly share my own experience of it.

From my own experience, I will say that it didn’t “work” in the sense that my orientation remains relatively unchanged, but it certainly helped me gain a much greater degree of psychological wholeness by being able to talk about very sensitive issues in an environment I felt safe in. It certainly wasn’t harmful to me in any way. What this bill will do, though, is take away safe environments from me and others.

Second, can orientation change or is it fixed? A relatively new field of scientific study called sexual fluidity is being pioneered by Dr. Lisa Diamond at the University of Utah. Her findings are increasingly casting doubt on the “born this way” mantra that we’ve heard the past couple of decades. In addition, we can’t ignore the people who claim to have been set free from their same-sex attractions (SSA) by the power of God. While admittedly, this group is small in comparison to other Christians who continue to wrestle with SSA (like myself), those who have experienced change shouldn’t be ignored.

Conclusion

I am unsure of what the long-term ramifications of this bill will be if it passes. Even if well-intentioned, I have a feeling this is a slow progression towards eliminating freedom of speech for religious groups.

Update (08/31/18): AB 2943 Withdrawn!

In a stunning turn of events, Evan Low, the author of AB 2943, withdrew the bill from being voted on and sent to the governor’s desk this year. In a statement that his office released, he said,

“Authoring Assembly Bill 2943 is one of the most personal decisions I have made since taking office. As an elected official, I made decisions that discriminated against my very existence in order to support the broader community I represented. I officiated at weddings but, at the time, I could not legally have one of my own. I hosted blood drives but I was prohibited from participating due to the FDA’s discriminatory ban on gay blood donors. I hosted Boy Scouts earning merit badges but as a child I was never able to earn my own.

“As a young person I often found myself confused about my sexual orientation. It was hard to find any mainstream media surrounding the feelings I was having. Gay men were not depicted in movies or TV that I was exposed to. I hid myself and my feelings because I was afraid of what others would think of me. This left me feeling very lost, scared, alone, and even suicidal. I wondered if I could change. Coming out was not an easy experience. Yet, I am grateful my community embraced me as I was, a gay man. Many fellow members of the LGBT community are not as fortunate and do not have the support I did and have been subjected to the harmful and fraudulent practice of conversion therapy.

“I authored Assembly Bill 2943 to ensure a remedy for those who are deceived by this deceptive practice. As the bipartisan bill progressed through the Legislature this year, opposition began to speak out against the legislation. I knew this was an emotionally charged issue, so I spent the past few months traveling up and down the state meeting with a wide variety of faith leaders.

“I was heartened by the conversations. A number of religious leaders denounced conversion therapy and recognized how harmful the practice is while acknowledging it has been discredited by the medical and psychological communities.  I left those productive conversations feeling hopeful. I believe every person who attended these meetings left with a greater understanding for the underlying reason and intention of this bill to create a loving and inclusive environment for all. However, I believe there is still more to learn.

“The best policy is not made in a vacuum and in order to advance the strongest piece of legislation, the bill requires additional time to allow for an inclusive process not hampered by legislative deadlines. With a hopeful eye toward the future, I share with you that, despite the support the bill received in the Assembly and Senate, I will not be sending AB 2943 to the Governor this year. I am committed to continuing to work towards creating a policy that best protects and celebrates the identities of LGBT Californians and a model for the nation to look towards.

“It is my obligation as a Legislator to make this difficult decision in the interest of finding common ground. The path towards full equality is a long journey, but a journey best traveled together. I invite you to join me.”

It sounds like he might try to reintroduce another version of this bill in the future, but, for the time being, it is being withdrawn.

My Evaluation

I am very pleased by this result. As I’ve said in previous posts, there was a lot of concerning language in this bill, particularly over the definition of what constituted “sexual orientation change efforts.” I’m grateful to see Assemblymember Low take an approach that seeks to get this kind of legislation right rather than trying to rush something like this through before the legislative deadline.

The history and science surrounding conversion and reparative therapy is mixed and complicated, as I myself know well. Therapeutic methods for changing orientation have largely been unsuccessful (in some cases harmful) and there are many bad reasons to seek out such therapy. However, banning it outright would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

The truth is, orientation is not immutable. God can, and has, changed people’s orientation, even if it is a small minority of those wrestling with same-sex attractions. The growing body of scientific evidence surrounding the topic of sexual fluidity confirms this as well, as some people’s orientation will fluctuate naturally over time or change depending on context.

Reparative therapy didn’t change my orientation, but it did give me a safe place to discuss my innermost thoughts and feelings in an environment where I knew that I and my therapist held to similar convictions on this issue of homosexuality. AB 2943 would have taken away my ability to purchase such therapy in the future should I desire to go back. I’m happy that, for now, this bill is going back to the drawing board.